Ninth Circuit Court Just Ruled Against Constitution

[SassyIrishLass]

This is the US, we are bound by the constitution of the US, which has some basis in English law, but that was decided when the founders created the constitution. English law also said that you had to worship according to the king's wishes and we know what the first amendment says about that. You can keep bowing to your queen all you want--we don't do that here.

Then it might come as a shock, that many early USSC decisions were based on "English law" as the foundation of their interpretation.

Origins of American Law | Boundless Political Science

Study Guides for thousands of courses. Instant access to better grades!

courses.lumenlearning.com

Law of the United States was mainly derived from the common law system of English law.

All U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted “reception statutes” which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge -made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.

Therefore, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form. An example is the heightened duty of care that was traditionally imposed upon common carriers.

You're being ridiculous

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why does the USSC allow prohibitions of carrying firearms by the citizenry on airplanes, into courts of law, or into the seats of government?

Airplanes because of highjacking.

There is no legitimate excuse for prohibiting LAW ABIDING citizens from having weapons in courts of law, or into the seats of government.

 

[deannalw]

Partially, the 2nd though was a direct abrogation of the Kings declaration that his subjects could bear no arms. Apart from History the Constitution cannot be understood.

The 2nd in text, gave that right to "a free state"

This is off topic and I apologize. But I have been wondering what y'all get from those royals for the staggering amounts of money they cost the citizens.

 

[postman]

What a nonsense claim.

Our founders put in the clause to have and bear arms specifically because of what the royal leaders of england had done to disarm and then attack people. They understood from history that tyrants like to disarm their populous in order to make them better victims. Our founders predicted that we would have to eventually rise up against our eventually corrupt government using our arms to defend ourselves.

To lie about history not showing historic precedence to own and carry weapons is complete bullshit propaganda.

The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms | 1776tv.com

The Truth about just what the Founding Fathers thought about the 2nd Amendment and the Individual's right to keep and bear arms. From the Revolution to the Bill of Rights and 1791.

1776tv.com

What you omitted is that they gave that right to the "free states". Only by grant interpretation was that devolved to be a right of the people.
The states feared the federal government, not the people. The very idea was incorporated in "states rights".

 

[Concerned American]

Partially, the 2nd though was a direct abrogation of the Kings declaration that his subjects could bear no arms. Apart from History the Constitution cannot be understood.

The 2nd in text, gave that right to "a free state"

You have no understanding--the free state to which they were referring was the US. Try again.

 

[Concerned American]

Partially, the 2nd though was a direct abrogation of the Kings declaration that his subjects could bear no arms. Apart from History the Constitution cannot be understood.

The 2nd in text, gave that right to "a free state"

This is off topic and I apologize. But I have been wondering what y'all get from those royals for the staggering amounts of money they cost the citizens.

Good question.

 

[postman]

You do know that the framers of the Constitution actually SHOT the individuals that tried to enforce that "English law", don't you????

Yet every original state clung to English common law. And the common law of today is the descendant of English common law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We did not start over. States continued under English common law. The federal government was the only one to start anew.

The second Amendment was written specifically due to the English prohibition of weapons by commoners - which inevitably leads to tyranny.

The scofflaw court is pissing on our Constitution. They swore to uphold the constitution and have violated their oath, which makes them illegitimate.

Legitimate government is founded on the consent of the governed. Such consent must be withdrawn from these criminal vermin of the 9th circuit.

 

[postman]

There is no legitimate excuse for prohibiting LAW ABIDING citizens from having weapons in courts of law, or into the seats of government.

So why hasn't the USSC spoken? They are either mute, deaf, or in complete agreement.

 

[Turtlesoup]

'The Arms of All The People Should Be Taken Away' | Stephen P. Halbrook

As we celebrate the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, evidence has been discovered that shows the Second Amendment was prompted by British plans to disarm each and every American. In 1777, William Knox, Under Secretary of State in the British colonial Office, circulated a proposal entitled...

www.independent.org

 

[postman]

The 2nd in text, gave that right to "a free state"

You have no understanding--the free state to which they were referring was the US. Try again.

The US is a nation, not a state. As the constitution makes clear.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED that's all you need to know.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is no legitimate excuse for prohibiting LAW ABIDING citizens from having weapons in courts of law, or into the seats of government.

So why hasn't the USSC spoken? They are either mute, deaf, or in complete agreement.

You have utterly no grasp at all how our government and legal system work.

Not a hint of a clue.

The 9th blatantly violated Heller with this ruling. Our cowardly SCOTUS fears the threats of the fascist democrats to "stuff the courts" and are terrified to stand up to the Reich. However, by directly violating Heller, the scofflaws of the 9th have fired a shot across the bow of the SCOTUS. They will have little choice but to respond. Failure to respond will place the criminal 9th as the highest court in the land, able to overrule the SCOTUS.

 

[Darkwind]

English law prior to 1775 is irrelevant. The second amendment is very clear--the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.

English law is the basis for our common law, and the basis for our understanding of what a right to bear arms meant.

English law was also the basis for the sovereignty of the King. How'd that work out?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So why hasn't the USSC spoken? They are either mute, deaf, or in complete agreement.

You have no grasp how American jurisprudence operates. Your ignorance is astounding.

 

[postman]

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED that's all you need to know.

Except you left out the preceding clause.

I always raise the example of page 49 of the bomb squad manual for type C time bombs.

Deactivate the bomb by cutting the blue wire, but not before cutting the red one.

 

[Turtlesoup]

The 2nd in text, gave that right to "a free state"

You have no understanding--the free state to which they were referring was the US. Try again.

The US is a nation, not a state. As the constitution makes clear.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which would leave out the gun issue completely since the US reserved the right to control weapons via the 2nd amendment.

 

[postman]

You have utterly no grasp at all how our government and legal system work.

Not a hint of a clue.

The 9th blatantly violated Heller with this ruling.

Heller addressed the right to possess a firearm for the purpose of self defense, which Heller expanded into an individual right.

They did not address the right to possess a firearm in public. They found unconstitutional a restriction on possession in house, home or business.

You should know, anything beyond that would have been "dicta"

 

[westwall]

“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority of an 11-judge panel in a 127-page opinion.

Looking back on 700 years of legal history dating back to 14th century England, seven judges in the majority found “overwhelming evidence” that the law has never given people “an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.”

The seven-judge majority traced legal texts and laws back to 1348 when the English parliament enacted the statute of Northampton, which banned carrying weapons in fairs or markets or before the King’s justices. It also cited multiple laws from colonial and pre-Civil War America in which states and colonies restricted the possession of weapons in public places.

“The Second Amendment did not contradict the fundamental principle that the government assumes primary responsibility for defending persons who enter our public spaces,” Bybee wrote. “The states do not violate the Second Amendment by asserting their longstanding English and American rights to prohibit certain weapons from entering those public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic violence.’”

Writing for the dissent, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said the majority failed to properly interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columba v. Heller, which overturned Washington D.C.’s total ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger-lock device.


The Second Amendment’s text, history, and structure, and the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller, all point squarely to the same conclusion: Armed self-defense in public is at the very core of the Second Amendment right,” O’Scannlain wrote.

Plaintiff George Young sued Hawaii in 2012 for denying his applications for permits to carry a concealed or openly visible handgun. A Hawaii state law requires a license to carry a gun in public.

Under a Hawaii County regulation, the police chief may only grant such licenses to those who need a gun for their job or who show “reason to fear injury” to their “person or property.” No one other than a security guard has ever obtained an open-carry license in Hawaii, lawyers for the county acknowledged during a Ninth Circuit hearing in 2018.


On July 2018, a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right and that Hawaii cannot deny permits to all non-security guard civilians who wish to exercise that right.

On Wednesday, the en banc panel majority reversed that decision, finding the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision is not inconsistent with state laws that restrict the right to carry arms in public.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf

Nothing to see here.....

Wrong.

This is a lie.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of prohibiting the open carrying of firearms.

This ruling is perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

I posted the decision. Disprove or YOU are the liar. But you always are so there is that. Your "Nuh-Uh" responses make you look stupid.

Because he IS stupid.

 

[westwall]

Partially, the 2nd though was a direct abrogation of the Kings declaration that his subjects could bear no arms. Apart from History the Constitution cannot be understood.

The 2nd in text, gave that right to "a free state"

The 2nd GIVES nothing. It merely recognizes what is. The PEOPLE are the State. Government is ultimately corrupt, so the PEOPLE have the Right to remove a corrupt government.